Tolkein is a bad writer - discuss

genji

Hey guys. I hope I didn't offend anyone there. Like I said at first, the posts on this thread are excellent on both sides of the debate. I'm just putting my opinions forward in defence of Tolkien's writing. It may not be to everyone's taste but I think it achieves what he intended it to.

Hi Alan. Yeah, I see. You can't really argue with what a reader gets out of a work of fiction, just the word "allegory" implies a writer's intent and that famously wasn't Tolkien's.

I thought that was what you meant. It's as much a break for the reader, too, as is Rivendell, Lothlorien and Henneth Annûn. I don't think you need to be exposed to war to be grateful for that though. Even being a parent can put you through it.

Well, that one was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there was a serious underlying point. I think there were simply too many characters for Jackson to handle so he turned them into idiots for a bit of comic relief.

I repeat, however, that I'm a big fan of Jackson's movies. I think they're fairly facile in comparison with the books and as a trilogy they're badly written and poorly paced. He left himself far too much to complete sensibly in the final movie and as a result much of it doesn't make sense. They do look amazing, though, and they're cracking action movies.

No. I'm not into fantasy. I like historical fiction, although I enjoy Terry Pratchett's Discworld books, too. GRRM looks interesting, though. Bleak.

EarthRod

Hi Genji

Your posts do not give offence chum so don't worry about that, the cut & thrust of debate and argument is normal. However there are some people on the forum who take umbrage at the slightest thing.

Note that Tolkien says he dislikes allegory, not that he didn’t use it in his works!

As a parent myself I quite understand your meaning but you've lost the plot. Any sort of front-line experience (military, ambulance, A&E doctors and nurses, firemen, sea and mountain rescue) accumulates a particular type of stress (for lack of a better word) and it works on aggregate. I can't talk any more about this - but "time-out" helps to release the mind and body from the accumulation of this 'stress' (in most cases).

I think that the Tom Bombadil episode gave the heroes rest and something else to think about. Gandalf thought it would be risky to give the ring to Tom because Tom was all-powerful and would therefore leave it lying around while skipping off singing his nonsensical but powerful songs!

Alan

eric pisch

i have the audio that transcript is taken from, so its the actual man himself talking and he clearly states his dislike for allegory he also states that LOTR is not an allegory, he goes on to say it has nothing to so with world war etc

genji

Cheers Alan. It's not my intention to try to belittle anyone else's opinion, nor to convince them that mine is 'right'.

He does say this about LotR: "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical." I think that extends to The Silmarillion, too.

I understand now, I think, the "particular type of stress" you alluded to when you said "one needs to experience war to understand" - war or real trauma. Is that correct? Do you mean recovery from PTSD? I read those sections as general respite from the turmoil of daily life, because that's what I bring to the book. I have read that LotR is used at Sandhurst and, with Tolkien's background and experience in the First World War, it's evident that there are more specific and realistic references to this that are not at the forefront of my mind when I read it.

To return to Smurfin's original point, it is often quoted that Tolkien's intent was to create for England an epic historical saga, chiefly inspired by Norse tradition and not least Finland's Kalevala:

Of such an "overweening purpose", however, he did say "my crest has long since fallen" and even called his ambition "absurd", but that should not diminish his achievement.

What Tolkien described as "cool and clear", "purged of the gross", is perhaps what modern readers might consider 'dry' or even boring. We're talking chiefly of The Silmarillion here, I think, but LotR links the childish adventures of The Hobbit to the grand, historical perspective of The Silmarillion. Certainly, LotR has provided the inspiration for a great many "other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."

Regarding pacing, I consider that the book is paced effectively and achieves a high level of mounting tension, excitement and drama. There are many interwoven strands in the story and its complexity is one of the main reasons I find it so engaging. This is part of Tolkien's intention to write coolly and clearly, never sensationalising the threats to his characters or their achievements and therefore never rushing the story along to its conclusion. It is fair to say that it is not taut, but that wasn't the author's intention. Epic poetry will meander off into side stories and adventures and that is what he hoped to achieve. With the knowledge of what his characters have been through, the reader can divine a sense of character development without the need for extensive psychological study.

The complexity of the story's many strands also illustrates how well LotR is plotted, IMO. The structure of the plot works excellently (for me) in stressing that the world is changing and entering the age of men and in showing all of the stratagems and political wrangling necessary to support the objectives of the free peoples before zooming in on them in Frodo and Sam's story.

Tolkien's writing style is a deliberate attempt to write in a certain way, as described above, and although it is tempered in LotR and intended to be more engaging it remains "cool and clear". I agree that his descriptions of flora can be tiresome and indulgent, but they're not overwhelming and they're functional in that they provide a connection to the landscape. They also serve to reflect Tolkien's own agenda against industrialisation without becoming polemic.

The last time I read LotR I did notice that the Witch King's death took only a couple of sentences to describe, despite it being a momentous event. But Tolkien does not revel in gore and a blow-by-blow account of the battle. He consciously avoids sensationalisation, and that can come off as lacklustre, but it successfully describes events in the way he intended to describe them.

As far as scenes and chapters that do little to enhance the story, as Alan shows above and letters Tolkien received from readers illustrated: "the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved."

A lot of people stumble when they get to 'The Council of Elrond' but personally I loved that chapter and 'The Shadow of the Past'. I thought it was excellently constructed and again wove together many interlinked tales and events in a way that was relatively naturalistic in that the full picture was not being described for the reader alone but for the characters too.

Whatever highfalutin' intention to write an epic history for England Tolkien may have had a mind to make, he actually created Middle-earth in order to have a viable universe in which the languages he had been making up since he was a child could exist, as mentioned by Theyden Bois. From that came all of this and all of this is extremely marketable and successful, which I don't think would be the case if he was a bad writer.

Smurfin

Clearly you are though, there's nothing historical about LOTR, it's...well.....fantasy.

Perhaps if you read some GRRM and Hobb, you'd understand exactly where I'm coming from

genji

I'm not sure about that. I mean, I'm not sure about my response. I don't consider it Fantasy, it's just a story to me although it's clearly not a history of the real world so it is fantastical. The thing is all fiction is fantasy. What I'm not into is the Fantasy genre, or at least the idea of it. Tolkien works for me because of the entire history behind it - why the world was created, what is being played out there, whose actions thousands of years ago caused the events occurring now. The way the threads weave throughout The Silmarillion are fascinating, I think.

If you can tell me those novelists provide the same expansive, detailed and convincing 'historical' perspective, then I'll give them a go.

Where should I start?

Smurfin

Try A Game of Thrones by George R R Martin.  I'm not sure about "historical perspective", there's certainly a huge history woven into the book, but it doesn't read like a history tome as first and foremost, it's about entertainment.  Fantastic story though

EarthRod

Thanks for the additional info guys and take back what I said about allegory. Again you have posted a wonderful response Genji - a joy to read. I shall pick up on some of your points later.

I'm not into fantasy novels at all, but on the recommendation of someone on the forum I tried George RR Martin. Could not get on with it unfortunately.

At the same bookstall in the local market I picked up Norman Mailer's "Ancient Evenings". Reading it at the moment and would say that it equals LOTR for breadth of storyline, power and creativity. The novel is large, over 700 pages, and about ancient Egypt (time of Rameses) and reincarnation.

Funny what nuggets of gold you may find rummaging round bookstalls!

Alan

Smurfin

Out of interest, what was it that you didn't like?

EarthRod

Basically, the book I got (A Game of Thrones) is a fantasy novel and I don't like fantasy. I suffered from reader's block when reading the book and thought the author needs to learn how to write.

Also, I found the style of writing too claustrophobic and "down". Hundreds of characters and all are doing stuff that seems to me to be pointless and not very savoury (especially the children). Over-kill is a word that springs to mind.

But (there is always a ‘but’ - never start a sentence with a But), I shall come back to it at a later date and have another go.

Alan